contreception

[Rence]

Your link takes you to a page that says the USCCB does not want it to become a law that hospitals have to give emergency contraceptive to rape victims.

If I understand correctly, if this bill passes (and it has a lot of supporters), the only consequence would be they would lose Federal funding. So they still can choose not to administer Plan B to rape victims.

 

[Jermosh]

Your link takes you to a page that says the USCCB does not want it to become a law that hospitals have to give emergency contraceptive to rape victims. It also says: “Emergency Contraceptives” are multiple-dose oral contraceptives taken after intercourse. The pills have at least four possible mechanisms: (1) suppressing ovulation, (2) altering cervical mucus to hinder the transport of sperm, (3) slowing the transport of the ovum and (4) inhibiting implantation of the newly conceived human embryo. Which of these mechanisms is operative depends on when the pills are taken. If taken before ovulation, EC may delay or inhibit ovulation, thereby preventing conception. If taken after the LH surge which triggers ovulation, EC will not disrupt ovulation in that cycle, but can inhibit implantation of the developing embryo."

I think that shows that this is not morally acceptable, but do you see something I don’t?

“A woman who has been raped should be able to defend herself from a potential conception and receive treatments to suppress ovulation and incapacitate sperm.”

I am not sure why yout that it would be immoral.

 

[Ron_Conte]

“A woman who has been raped should be able to defend herself from a potential conception and receive treatments to suppress ovulation and incapacitate sperm.”

It is absurd to use the principle of self-defense to justify the medical interventions that are morally used after rape. Self-defense only applies to cases where one’s life or well-being are threatened by an attacker; the guilt of the attacker allows the use of violence against him.

The moral principle that permits medical interventions in cases of rape is the same principle that makes contraception intrinsically evil. Sexual relations is naturally directed toward conception. That is why contra-ception is immoral. And that is why these medical interventions are an interruption of the rape and so are not contraception from a moral point of view.

But the basis for this distinction is NOT intention, but the inherent ordering of an act toward its moral object.

 

[Jea9]

“A woman who has been raped should be able to defend herself from a potential conception and receive treatments to suppress ovulation and incapacitate sperm.”

I am not sure why yout that it would be immoral.

“suppressing ovulation” and “incapacitating sperm” is not the same thing as aborting a newly conceived child. I’m certain that is why there is the part about what happens when ovulation has already occurred. The USCCB has said it is moral to delay ovulation to protect the woman, they have not said that it is moral to abort a conceived child. The only action that the morning after pill can take once ovulation has already occurred in that cycle is to dispel (aka KILL) any child that would be conceived by the rape. It is the same reason that birth control pills are abortifaciants (sp?). I’m not sure why YOU think that it IS moral.

 

[Jea9]

If I understand correctly, if this bill passes (and it has a lot of supporters), the only consequence would be they would lose Federal funding. So they still can choose not to administer Plan B to rape victims.

My comment wasn’t about anything about this specific bill, just that the other poster, Jermosha, used it as a link to say that the USCCB has not clarified the use of the morning after pill for rape victims. But thanks, that’s good to know! It’s scary when the government wants to make our decisions for us!

 

[ThomasToo]

My comment wasn’t about anything about this specific bill, just that the other poster, Jermosha, used it as a link to say that the USCCB has not clarified the use of the morning after pill for rape victims. But thanks, that’s good to know! It’s scary when the government wants to make our decisions for us!

I don’t think it’s so much that a rape victim will be force fed Plan B but it will be made available to her.

 

[Jea9]

I don’t think it’s so much that a rape victim will be force fed Plan B but it will be made available to her.

Actually, I was referring to the government forcing hospitals to offer it at all. That’s the part that’s scary, if it is a Catholic hospital that does not find the pill a moral option, then they shouldn’t be forced to offer it. But, again, it wasn’t really the point of my posting the quote. It was more to try to get the other poster to explain how this defended his point.

 

[ThomasToo]

Actually, I was referring to the government forcing hospitals to offer it at all. That’s the part that’s scary, if it is a Catholic hospital that does not find the pill a moral option, then they shouldn’t be forced to offer it. But, again, it wasn’t really the point of my posting the quote. It was more to try to get the other poster to explain how this defended his point.

Sorry for the confusion. So it’s not ok for the government to decide things for people but the hospitals can?

 

[Jea9]

Sorry for the confusion. So it’s not ok for the government to decide things for people but the hospitals can?

The hospital isn’t making this decision for the woman. It is extremely rare (and I live in a pretty rural area) that the ONLY hospital option is a Catholic one. If a woman wants to have “emergency contraception” she can choose to go to a public hospital, one not run by a Catholic (or other religion that opposes the use) organization. She has the choice. It is no different then asking a doctor to perform an abortion, if he does not do abortions, but the patient wants one, she can seek care elsewhere.

 

[ThomasToo]

The hospital isn’t making this decision for the woman. It is extremely rare (and I live in a pretty rural area) that the ONLY hospital option is a Catholic one. If a woman wants to have “emergency contraception” she can choose to go to a public hospital, one not run by a Catholic (or other religion that opposes the use) organization. She has the choice. It is no different then asking a doctor to perform an abortion, if he does not do abortions, but the patient wants one, she can seek care elsewhere.

My sister went to university in Spokane, WA and all six hospitals in the area are Catholic (excluding the Shiners’ hospital but one needs to be under 18 to be admitted). Is she just out of luck? Does a woman who as been raped need to go through the phone book to find someone who is willing to give her the medical care she needs?

Another forum member and I just began discussing abortion in the case of rape on this thread. I don’t want to pull this thread off track but I’d be happy to continue this discussion with you either here or there (or elsewhere).

 

[Jea9]

My sister went to university in Spokane, WA and all six hospitals in the area are Catholic (excluding the Shiners’ hospital but one needs to be under 18 to be admitted). Is she just out of luck? Does a woman who as been raped need to go through the phone book to find someone who is willing to give her the medical care she needs?

Another forum member and I just began discussing abortion in the case of rape on this thread. I don’t want to pull this thread off track but I’d be happy to continue this discussion with you either here or there (or elsewhere).

First, the bolded part. This is NOT medical care she needs. It is a choice she would make to hinder the chances of carrying a rapists child. She could not be denied medical care that she NEEDS, this, however, is not necessary. Second, “emergency contraception” CAN be morally acceptable (this is according to what I’ve heard on various CAL shows Pro-Life Open Forum) if they first do a test to determine if she’s ovulated, if she has not, the contraception can be given, but ONLY to prevent ovulation.

*please note, I am NOT a moral theologian, I am going off of what I’ve learned through Catholic Answers. I trust them to give me correct answers. I also KNOW that abortion is NEVER OK and that if you give a medication that has the effect of aborting any conceived child, then it is intrisically evil and not morally acceptable.

 

[ThomasToo]

First, the bolded part. This is NOT medical care she needs. It is a choice she would make to hinder the chances of carrying a rapists child…

I would argue that’s medical care.

 

[Jea9]

I would argue that’s medical care.

I didn’t say it wasn’t medical care. I said it wasn’t medical care she NEEDS. But, I could argue that I don’t think “care” is an appropriate word choice, but that isn’t the point I’m trying to make. My point is, this is not a necessity, she does not NEED “emergency contraception”, she wants to make a CHOICE to potentially kill a rapists child. This is similar to a person who wants to have their knee replaced but the insurance company says they won’t pay for it because it’s not medically necessary. This is an imperfect analogy of course, because one is life or death (the child’s) and one is not; but you can see that the insurance company isn’t making the decision, they’re saying “we won’t pay for it”. Likewise, a Catholic hospital isn’t saying “you can’t use this” it’s saying “we won’t provide it”.

 

[ThomasToo]

I didn’t say it wasn’t medical care. I said it wasn’t medical care she NEEDS. But, I could argue that I don’t think “care” is an appropriate word choice, but that isn’t the point I’m trying to make. My point is, this is not a necessity, she does not NEED “emergency contraception”, she wants to make a CHOICE to potentially kill a rapists child. This is similar to a person who wants to have their knee replaced but the insurance company says they won’t pay for it because it’s not medically necessary. This is an imperfect analogy of course, because one is life or death (the child’s) and one is not; but you can see that the insurance company isn’t making the decision, they’re saying “we won’t pay for it”. Likewise, a Catholic hospital isn’t saying “you can’t use this” it’s saying “we won’t provide it”.

Sorry for my confusion.

Insofar as carrying a rapist’s child to term can be an experience that is so psychologically trying that women can become suicidal because of it I think we are at the very least approaching the territory of need.

Couldn’t you also say that the woman who hasn’t ovulated doesn’t, strictly speaking, need emergency contraception either? Or that one does not need, for example, to have the rape investigated?

In a situation like my sister in Spokane the Catholic hospital is saying ‘you can’t use this’ as there is nowhere else to provide it.

 

[Jea9]

Sorry for my confusion.
**
Insofar as carrying a rapist’s child to term can be an experience that is so psychologically trying that women can become suicidal because of it** I think we are at the very least approaching the territory of need.

Couldn’t you also say that the woman who hasn’t ovulated doesn’t, strictly speaking, need emergency contraception either? Or that one does not need, for example, to have the rape investigated?

In a situation like my sister in Spokane the Catholic hospital is saying ‘you can’t use this’ as there is nowhere else to provide it.

So can knowing you’ve murdered an innocent person. I still do not grant that “emergency contraception” is a necessity. I don’t think it’s necessary for the woman who hasn’t ovulated to be given the contraception either. I didn’t say that. I said it’s morally acceptable (again, per CAL and their awesome speakers, as I am NOT a moral theologian). I’m not sure what having the rape investigated has to do with abortion, or “emergency contraception”.

This isn’t something that has to be administered in the ER, so actually she could see a doctor that would potentially prescribe it. She still has options. There are probably other hospitals in driving distance that are not Catholic, or otherwise against contraception.

 

[ThomasToo]

So can knowing you’ve murdered an innocent person. I still do not grant that “emergency contraception” is a necessity. I don’t think it’s necessary for the woman who hasn’t ovulated to be given the contraception either. I didn’t say that. I said it’s morally acceptable (again, per CAL and their awesome speakers, as I am NOT a moral theologian). I’m not sure what having the rape investigated has to do with abortion, or “emergency contraception”.

This isn’t something that has to be administered in the ER, so actually she could see a doctor that would potentially prescribe it. She still has options. There are probably other hospitals in driving distance that are not Catholic, or otherwise against contraception.

Wouldn’t the set of those things which are truly necessary be substantially more restricted than those things we may want?

Would you say that, for example, anti-anxiety, -psychotic or -depressant medication could be a medical necessity?

 

[Jea9]

Wouldn’t the set of those things which are truly necessary be substantially more restricted than those things we may want?

Would you say that, for example, anti-anxiety, -psychotic or -depressant medication could be a medical necessity?

I’m not sure I understand your first question, I think that’s the point that I’m making, but maybe I’m misunderstanding you?

I would say that those things, in some cases, could be deemed medically necessary, by an insurance company. I don’t think that it would qualify as medically necessary for ER-type visits. Someone more familiar with the goings on in ERs could better answer that. I would also qualify that with, they have nothing to do with providing or not providing contraception. If your line of thought is taking you to, “well, providing the contraception will do the same thing as these medications, potentially preventing psychosis, anxiety, or depression”, I certainly can’t say that murdering an INNOCENT person if it will save you from anxiety, psychosis, or depression, is justifiable. It is intrinsically evil, and not acceptable.

 

[ThomasToo]

I’m not sure I understand your first question, I think that’s the point that I’m making, but maybe I’m misunderstanding you?

I would say that those things, in some cases, could be deemed medically necessary, by an insurance company. I don’t think that it would qualify as medically necessary for ER-type visits. Someone more familiar with the goings on in ERs could better answer that. I would also qualify that with, they have nothing to do with providing or not providing contraception. If your line of thought is taking you to, “well, providing the contraception will do the same thing as these medications, potentially preventing psychosis, anxiety, or depression”, I certainly can’t say that murdering an INNOCENT person if it will save you from anxiety, psychosis, or depression, is justifiable. It is intrinsically evil, and not acceptable.

I mean ‘necessary’ not ‘medically necessary.’

I was just asking the question about those medication because I’m curious what you think. I see a parallel but I was not trying to trap you.

I would, however, disagree with the argument that a fetus–especially mere hours after conception–is a person in the moral sense.

 

[Rence]

My comment wasn’t about anything about this specific bill, just that the other poster, Jermosha, used it as a link to say that the USCCB has not clarified the use of the morning after pill for rape victims. But thanks, that’s good to know! It’s scary when the government wants to make our decisions for us!

Well, to be fair, the government isn’t trying to mandate that hospitals must admisinter plan B to all rape victims. They are trying to mandate that hospitals inform rape victims of all of their care options, including the availability of plan b, and to offer it to them. I know what you mean about being uncomfortable with the government making decisions for us, and I agree, but in this case, they want to make sure women have all the information they need (without bias) in order to make the right choice for themselves.

 

[Rence]

Originally Posted by Jea9
First, the bolded part. This is NOT medical care she needs. It is a choice she would make to hinder the chances of carrying a rapists child…

I would argue that’s medical care.

I agree, it most definitely is medical care that she needs. The needs of a patient varies from patient to patient and takes into account the whole patient, not parts of the patient. Therefore, medical care that is needed is based on the emotional, spiritual, psychological and physical needs of each individual patient.

I believe this is a very important bill and I’ve been sending letters to my representatives to help get it passed. Rape victims need stronge advocates, and I am one of them.

Notice, this bill doesn’t force compliance. Hospitals have a choice too.